Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. In weighing the arguments below, I gave particular consideration to those that addressed the reason for nomination, which was the notability or otherwise of the article subject. Because this is a biographical article it must meet both the general notability guidelines (GNG) and the biographical notability guidelines (essentially a subset of the GNG); these define notability in Wikipedia's terms, which are very different from definitions one might find elsewhere. I discounted those comments both for and against deletion that did not reference Wikipedia policy or were otherwise irrelevant.

I appreciate the arguments for deletion and understand why—taken singly—some of the claims to the subject's notability may appear weak. However, I believe that those arguing for "keep" have demonstrated that enough collective "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" exists for a standalone article. If it is felt that some of the sources used are not reliable or independent, the best place to explore that would be on the article talk-page or at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regarding the page move suggested by a couple of participants, I see no agreement for the title of the target page; again, this should be discussed further on the article talk-page so a consensus can be reached. EyeSerene talk 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel S. Razón

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A Google search for "Daniel S. Razón" returns over 120,000 hits with roughly 99% of them being namesakes. The only real sources are either from UNTV, where the subject is the CEO and host of most of the programs, or from blogs and public forums written almost entirely by members of the religious organization MCGI, where the subject is vice-presiding minister. Of the three Sun Star Pampanga articles used as references, only one is truly about the subject ADD leader declared 'persona non grata', but does being an official persona non grata in a town in Pampanga, Philippines make a person notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Shannon Rose Talk 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing of interest. He's a man of many interest but there's no proof that he excelled in any, or at least excelled enough to be noted and deserving of an entry in an encyclopedia. Conrad940 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are independent, which the nominator overlooked. Starczamora (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate what you're trying to say but if you will just take some time to review what I wrote above you will realize that I did not really overlook anything. Basically, there are 3 sources given 1. Titik Filipino; 2. ABS-CBN Interactive; and 3. Sun Star Pampanga. 1. The Titik Filipino website is in itself non-notable, it is simply one of the many websites that sell lyrics for songs, in this case OPM, unofficially, meaning to say with or without the consent of the owner. WP:RS gave us the definitive guideline on the type of reference(s) that we should use here, which are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This unknown and anonymous website is actually disqualified as a reliable source, but even if we do accept it, does self-producing a music album make one notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? How many self-produced music albums from individual performers and bands are out there? Thus, I agree completely with Conrad940 above, he may be a man of many interests but he never excelled in any one of them to the point of attaining notability. 2. ABS-CBN interactive is a reliable source, but the article mentioned does not even exist! And even if it once did, according to the article in question, it merely spoke about a disqualification of one Party List. Would the disqualification of a Party List where the subject is a member candidate make him notable? How many candidates and Party Lists have been disqualified by the Philippine COMELEC for this or that reason? Does each of them have WP articles? 3. Now, the Sun Star Pampanga (a provincial tabloid) I have already discussed above. None of the 3 articles cited are directly about the subject save one, that he, a deputy religious leader, has been declared a Persona Non-Grata in the town of Apalit. So what? He is notable because of that? Google News returns 2 hits both promotional opinion pieces (Op-Ed). Google books returned zero hits. And Google Scholar returned zero hits. The lack of any genuine relevant and substantial 3rd party coverage from reliable sources speaks volumes about the theorized notability of the guy. – Shannon Rose Talk 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. If you ditch the diacritics (which shouldn't be there anyway) and the middle initial, Google searches explode to 264,000 results. Dunno why the article is named like this. Probably should be moved to Daniel Razon. – Howard  the   Duck  19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits"... Hit count numbers alone can only rarely 'prove' anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." WP:SET – Shannon Rose Talk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, i move the page to Daniel Razon (broadcaster). I dont like to delete that article, this is religious leader and public servant. - Gabby 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I not keen on the article's subject, but perhaps you can utilize those "crude measure of importance" aka hits into something that is useful in Wikipedia -- making them as references. This guy prior to being a part of Ang Dating Daan was radio and TV news presenter, that should be enough to cross the bar of notability. – Howard  the   Duck  03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is being a radio and TV news presenter don't necessarily make one notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I mean, just browse through your latest Brittannica or Grolier and take note of the radio and TV personalities included there to have an idea of what it means to be notable in those fields. In WP, verifiable evidence for notability consists mainly of substantial coverage in reliable sources and published peer recognition. Another reason why it is difficult to weed-out RS is because the subject is a massive self-promoter and so is his org. Most coverage that may seem reliable at first glance can be traced directly to him or via one of his org's many auxilliaries. Thus, failing the "Independent of the subject" portion of WP:GNG, which excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. – Shannon Rose Talk 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My Grolier Encyclopedia didn't have an article for the FIFA World Cup. With that said, sources are available. Someone has just to look for them. As I've said he was a broadcast journalist even before he joined the Ang Dating Daan. It's just someone has to look for them. From the net or offline. – Howard  the   Duck  04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen several news articles prior from his involvement with Ang Dating Daan, I'd add them later today. – Howard  the   Duck  05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moot. Apparently, he has an musical album. And it was certified gold in the Philippines. That passes the notability criteria for a musician. – Howard  the   Duck  05:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Razon's Isang Araw Lang album is produced by Breakthrough and Milestones International (BMPI), which he owns. If ever it turned gold, he awarded himself that. A true gold record award in the Philippines should come from the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. There is also no RS supporting the claim that the record was awarded gold by the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. The key here is Notability (music) >> Music recording sales certification >> List of music recording sales certifications >> Philippine Association of the Record Industry. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The award was given by "Able Music Incorporated" which is a member of PARI. – Howard  the   Duck  18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that the award did not come from PARI. All legitimate commercial record productions in the Philippines are members of PARI. PARI awards gold certificates, not the members. Please produce an RS stating that the subject's album was awarded gold by the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. – Shannon Rose Talk 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The award came from PARI. It was awarded from a member organization.
 * Let me make myself clear, it is the recording companies who give these "awards" to their own artists. I remember Mandy Moore being given such an award when her first three albums went x times platinum by Sony Music Philippines. The award being given by a member company is the real thing. – Howard  the   Duck  19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Produced by Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI), Isang Araw Lang, the album has a total of ten tracks, including the carrier single of the same name." (Danielrazon.com). It was Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI) who produced the album, not the PARI member Able Music Incorporated. Bernie Refuerzo of Able Music Incorporated only did the honor of handing the award to Razon at the YCONCON: Isang Araw Lang concert. If you stand by your argument that such awards are given by their producers who are PARI member organizations and not by PARI itself then Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI) is not a member of PARI and Razon's non-RS "gold album" is simply self-given and still illegitimate. – Shannon Rose Talk 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was given out my a PAMI member, that trumps all of this self-produced stuff. color="#FFA500">the ]] Duck ''' 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to you, such awards are not given directly by PARI itself but by record producers who are PARI members instead, as in the case of Mandy Moore and her label Sony Music Philippines. I have already showed you that the album was self-produced by Razon via his Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI). My source is Razon's own website. Now, BMPI is not a PARI member, which means that BMPI's gold record award is bogus! If a gold record award automatically makes a recording artist notable, then Razon is not notable because he was not given any such award by the Philippine equivalent to the American RIAA. – Shannon Rose Talk 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although his album (as you said it) was self-produced), the fact to the matter is it was given by a PARI member. I dunno how things work out there but perhaps BMPI was the producer and Able Music was its distributor, but it was given by Able Music would be enough to push this towards the notability criterion for music, among others. – Howard  the   Duck  13:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the subject is he simply isn't notable. And it's not difficult to see that! But here, those who like to believe that he is notable are using every trick in the book to disprove that glaring fact. When they can't find anything notable about his being a vice-president of a minor sect, they run to his being a news reporter. But he is also not notable in that field! So, now they run to his being a singer. But the gold award, which is supposed to redeem him by WP policy, turned-out to be a self-given hoax of an award! Which is not surprising because the subject is known to be involved in various self-serving hoaxes as the article itself tells us (e.g. their party list was disqualified because of this). Now, the guy also does nature photography and conducts exhibits. Why don't we try that card? It may work! C'mon, let's just be honest with ourselves and nuke this darn article as well as others who don't belong in an encyclopedia. Let's clean-up Wikipedia! – Shannon Rose Talk 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You gotta explain what this means: "Follower of International Fugitive Eliseo Soriano's Dirty Tricks Foiled Again!". I don't know your motive or who you are working for, but I suspect you're either in one of those organizations that are against MCGI, or is heavily influenced by it. I am neither a member of the MCGI or the organizations opposed by it, and I suggest to the closing admin to weigh this fact. It seems that you will not be convinced that this guy is notable. I mean, he was on morning TV at GMA Network for five years even before being a member of the MCGI, declared a persona non grata by a town in Pampanga, run for office but was disqualified, and is a head of a news department of a TV station. The last one alone is good enough reason alone for him to have an article. I won't be making any more comments on this issue, except when somebody else asks me something about this, but I implore the closing admin to check out Shannon Rose's edits and motives before coming up with a decision. – Howard  the   Duck  02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another note for the closing admin/user: If it turns out that the closing user is an admin/sysop, and the article is kept, I suggest moving the article to Daniel Razon without the middle initial and the diacritic. – Howard  the   Duck  05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Follower of International Fugitive Eliseo Soriano's Dirty Tricks Foiled Again!" means exactly what it says. That for three or four times in a row, checkusers that I have personally requested revealed that people who edit war by persistently removing all duly-sourced negative reports about Eli Soriano and his anomalous sect turned-out to be the same person. If sockpuppetry is not a dirty trick and these people are not followers of this religious leader then I am Spiderman! Please see examples 1, 2, 3.


 * Now, let me go through your list here: 1. "Was on morning TV at GMA Network for five years even before being a member of the MCGI" – does not establish notability; 2. "Declared a persona non grata by a town in Pampanga," – I am not sure about this one (that is why I am asking those who know for sure: is this enough to make one notable? If yes I will change the notability clause to reflect what the man is truly notable for); 3. "Run for office but was disqualified" – thousands of candidates get disqualified by the COMELEC each time (actually, it was the Party List that he belonged to that was disqualified, please see Comelec disqualifies 152 party lists for 2010 elections), does not establish notability; 4. "Head of a news department of a TV station" – does not establish notability (not included in WP:BIO as an automatic indicator of notability).


 * Though pro-keep editors are yet to provide even one RS supporting notability, all of the articles contained on non-RS websites (mostly blogs and forums) floating in the Internet fall under WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." and completely failing standard yardsticks: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." and 1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. WP:ANYBIO – Shannon Rose Talk 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the pro-keep editors are forgetting what the main issue of the proposal to delete this article and that is notability. What is notability anyway? webster.com defines it as worthy of note, remarkable, distinguished, prominent. As Shannon Rose already enumerated above, Mr Razon really hasn't done anything of note, nothing remarkable. His claim to fame are his being a TV announcer, singer and televangelist. Would you agree that if one is a prominent filipino singer, newscaster or even a televangelist that he will no doubt appear in at least one of the two major T.V. stations, namely ABS-CBN and GMA, aired outside of the Philippines. Unlike his former colleagues, he has no TV show, morning or otherwise that is seen in the U.S. through The Filipino channel. His "album" is not played on any radio station carried by these same two major TV station. Mike Velarde, a prominent televangelist has a show every Sunday. Given that he may well deserve a Philippines-only wikipedia, not en.wikipedia. He doesn't stand out and there's really nothing of interest. Please delete. Conrad940 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing admin: Please consider that the subject completely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. – Shannon Rose Talk 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article makes reasonable claims of notability, but I'm not seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. If better sources exist, could someone please provide them? Robofish (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're 100% correct. This person, due to a gazillion of interests, can make a gazillion claims to notability, but to establish even one of those claims by Wikipedia standards is absolutely impossible. I actually debated myself using all sorts of loopholes before nominating the article for deletion. Going strictly by Wikipedia standards, I was unable to find even one RS supporting notability. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Because he is the right choice for god. Gabby (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so we need to keep the article "Because he is the right choice for god"? Makes so much sense. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and requesting move to Daniel Razón, middle initials are not applied in encyclopedic articles. Only Harry S. Truman does available. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 12:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Another fantastic and invincible argument in favor of keeping the article! Because how can anyone argue with an argument that does not exist? Perhaps ApprenticeFan mistook this place as some sort of "election" forum where one simply votes. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd favor ditching the diacritic too. See Filipino orthography. – Howard  the   Duck  12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times do you have to mention the removal of the acute "o"? As you completely failed to establish the notability of the subject in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO, you are now using the "you should not have used the diacritic in Googling his name" tactic. Both of us did searches without the diacritic and still were unable to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (closing admin, please peruse the previous discussions to validate this) but only blogs, forums, and other sources perfectly matching WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." – Shannon Rose Talk 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle (on yourself repeating WP:GNG. I didn't "vote" twice. I merely told him/her to consider ditching the diacritic too since s/he's into moving the article anyway. That was normal procedure. This is not a vote. I've been involved with too many AFDs I know how this thing works. I'd leave it to the closing user on how to judge this. – Howard  the   Duck  11:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously-flawed logic. My first mention of WP:GNG was to the closing admin, the second was directed to yourself and only in passing. Your diacritic trick has been used for the same audience twice, with it being the sole point of both messages. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it's actually sad if the pro-keep poster here rely solely on google hits to justify notability. added to that is exactly what Shannon had pointed out, the hits are mainly from supporters of Mr Razon. If we take away google and only had newspapers and radio we'd still read and hear about Pat Robertson, Conan O'brien and Susan Boyle, but not Mr Razon.Conrad940 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Since I'm here anyway) I don't think the Manila Standard ref I provided are uh... supporters of whatever organization Razon is/are (a) part/s of. – Howard  the   Duck  11:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your Manila Standard reference falls under WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." – Shannon Rose Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I've actually found Google News links I could use as references, but you'd need $$$ to see the articles so I'd have to use the trusty Wayback Machine to see them. I'd probably do this on Friday night. Unless, of course the Manila Bulletin is not a reliable source or if the organization/s Razon is/are a part of owns MB. 11:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the article, but it is unavailable even in the Wayback Machine I had to ask someone to sift through the dusty archives here (it wasn't that hard to find anyway). I believe this is enough as the MB article discusses extensively what happened in 2005. I'd be adding another one on the gold record thingy later. – Howard  the   Duck  13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the article in the internets. It is referenced in the article already. – Howard  the   Duck  13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The gold record award article you placed there is an Op-Ed column, which falls under "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." WP:RS – Shannon Rose Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep sufficent information and references given to justify encylopedia entry. Its nota paper based encylopedia. Article could do with a clean up and rewrite.Cathar11 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: A notice of discussion was posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. – Howard  the   Duck  13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "paper encyclopedia" only encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia whether it is on paper, CD ROM, or the Internet. They all follow similar standards for establishing notability. This is not a paper encyclopedia is a meaningless smokescreen to blur clearly laid-out distinctions between notable and unnotable bios. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability standards are not designed to be overly punitive of articles which are supposedly devoid of any referential substance, nor are they designed to be loose enough as to allow articles to pass unnoticed without reliable sources. The question here is what notability vis-a-vis reliable sources entails: are the sources reliable enough as to provide an accurate picture of the subject's notability?  So far, I'd say they're neck-and-neck.  However, do understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can have articles on anyone and anything as long as they have the references to back it up.  Currently all I see is a strong (and increasingly uncivil, as evidenced from edit summaries and correspondence with Conrad940, among others) effort from the nominator to discredit the article without making any effort to find RSes which can aid in the article's development, which is precisely what keep-leaning editors are doing.  AfD is not designed to serve as an avenue for improving articles, but it seems to be that it is beginning to be the case.  I'm neutral, but I remain wholly unconvinced by the supposed unnotability of Daniel Razon, contrary to the nominator's claims that "99.9% of the population haven't even heard of this guy's name!". --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.